Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 95 Filed 11/07/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID 2008

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMP A DIVISION LUIS A. GARCIA SAZ, and wife, MARIA DEL ROCIO BURGOS GARCIA Plaintiffs, Vs. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS TRUST; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SHIP SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC d/b/a MAJESTIC CRUISE LINES; lAS ADMINISTRATIONS, INC,; U.S . IAS MEMBERS TRUST. CASE NO. 8:13-CV-220-T27 TBM

_____________________________________/
PLAINTIFFS ' MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS FSO AND FSSO'S RESPONSE TO THE ORDER FOR EXISTING WRITTEN ARBITRATION PROCEDURES THAT GOVERN SCIENTOLOGY ARBITRATION
Plaintiffs Luis A. Garcia Saz and Maria Del Rocio Burgos Garcia respectfully submit this response in opposition to Defendants' Response to the Comt's Order seeking "existing, written arbitration procedures that govern Scientology arbitration." [D.E. 89] Sumnuuy of Argument The sh01t answer to the Court's Order is simple: There are none. In fact, no Scientology arbitration bas ever been conducted. FSO and FSSO's response cannot obfuscate these undeniable truths. The Committee of Evidence Is Not An Arbitration Panel The EnTailment Agreements of FSO and FSSO are the only documents containing a refe rence to arbitration. There are no documents that govern the "arbitration" proceeding.

Defendants

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 95 Filed 11/07/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID 2009

Despite their advocacy, Introduction to Scientology Ethics, 2007 ed., never once references "arbitration. " 1 The Committee of Evidence, a long standing principle in Scientology, is fundamentally different than arbitration, a relatively new concept. In essence, an accused individual is ca/1ed before a Committee of Evidence to answer to a complaint or offense, while an aggrieved pa1ty must request arbitration.

(Introduction to Scientology Ethics at 341; See also Emollment

Agreements, Composite Exhibit 7 of D.E. 31-1) "A Committee of Evidence is convened on the subject of a kno\vn Crime or High Crime," which includes suppressive acts. (Introduction to

Scientology Ethics at 302-307 and at 308-315) Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Garcia has ever been
summoned before a Committee of Evidence in com1cction with any conduct relative to return of funds, nor have Defendants ever asserted commission of any such conduct when moving to compel arbitration in this case. Further, despite Defendants' claims that both mechanisms are complimentary, there are critical inconsistencies between the structures and functions of a Committee of Evidence and arbitration. FICTION #1: Arbitration and the Committee of Evidence are complimentary in policy and practice. FACT: The fundamental fimction of the Committee of Evidence and the arbitral panel are different. "A committee of evidence . .. as it has come to be looked on (and is) a trial by jwy, there being a charge." (Introduction to Scientology Ethics at 349, emphasis added)) Arbitration, as defined by legal practice and in the Enrollment Agreements, consists of an arbitral panel, not a charge or a jury. (Enrollment Agreements; See also Rinder Dec!. at~ 8) li'ICTION #2: A 1963 policy letter "specifically states that a Committee of Evidence is used to resolve disputes .. . including specifically questions of'refimds."' (Defendants' Response at 2) FACT: The vague reference to an unspecified "1963 policy letter," which is not attached to Defendants' Response, is contradicted by the very book Defendants assert describes the According to the fimctions of a Conunittee of Evidence. Introduction to Scientology Ethics, "[a] Commitlee may hear any civil or criminal matter or dispute within the realm of
Relevant portions of Introduction to Scientology Ethics, 2007 ed., are attached as Exhibit I to the Declaration of Mike Rinder, November 6, 2013, which is appended hereto as Exhibit A.
1

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 95 Filed 11/07/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID 2010

Scientology ... libel, estranging marital partners, dismissals, debt, theft, mayhem, violations of codes, deprivation of income or any dispute or harmful improper action of any kind may be heard." (Introduction to Scientology Ethics at 345) Such matters do not include any reference to return of monies :fiom the church. FICTION #3: The members of the arbitral panel, like the members of a Committee of Evidence, are convened by the Convening Authority. (Defendants' Response at 2) FACT: The arbitral panel is not specially named by any one entity, including a Convening Authority. Each party to the arbitration is permitted to designate one arbiter each, and those selected two, designate the third. (Enrollment Agreements) FICTION #4: The arbitration process consists of a Chairman and a Secretary. (Defendants' Response at~ 3-4) FACT: These duties and roles were not contemplated by the Church in connection with arbitration, and neither of these terms appear anywhere in the Enrollment Agreement, nor do they appear in the Introduction to Scientology Ethics in connection to arbitration. Further, a Committee of Evidence is composed of a Chairman, Secretary and two to five Committee members appointed by the Convening Authority (Introduction to Scientology Ethics at 346). While the arbitral panel is limited to 3 members, the Cmmnittee of Evidence may contain anywhere from 4 to 7 members, of which the Secretary and Chairman are separate and apmt from the Conunittee Members. FICTION #5: After selection of the first t\vo arbiters, the third, is "the chairman of the arbitration panel [and] is appointed at the discretion of the convening authority appointing the committee." (Defendants' Response at ~13) FACT: The third arbiter is selected by the other two arbiters. (Enrollment Agreements) Despite Defendants' intentional m.isrepresentations regarding the Committee of Evidence and the Arbitration Process, Defendants' own documentation and admissions conflict with such representations, and present the two processes as separate and distinct mechanisms: "Any dispute, claim or controversy which still remains umesolved after review by the IJC shall be submitted to binding religious

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 95 Filed 11/07/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID 2011

arbitration in accordance with the arbitration procedures of Church of Scientology International ... " (Enrolhnent Agreements) "Even parishioners, like the Garcias, who have been expelled from the church, have recourse in the form of a Committee of Evidence and/or religious arbitration." (Mansell Declaration at ~ 26, D.E. 8-1 (emphasis added)) "If the above procedures do not resolve a given dispute, the dispute must be submitted to binding arbitration." (Mansell Declaration at ~ 27, D.E. 8-1, drm: ving a distinction betv.'een arbitration and his earlier description of the Committee of Evidence) The Committee of Evidence was not referenced even once m this litigation prior to Defendants being ordered to describe 'vritten procedures governing arbitration. Plaintiffs believe that such approach is fully consistent with the fiction paraded before this Court in response to its request. The Guise of Arbitration The intent of the arbitration clause was to create the appearance of a just means to obtain return of funds. (Rathbun Decl. at
~

13, Rinder Decl. at

5) It was never intended to be used,

~

nor are Plaintiffs aware of it ever being used, since its creation. (Rathbun Decl. at

13, Rinder

Decl. at ,] 6). It is for that nefarious reason that procedures beyond selection of the arbitral panel were not devised or contemplated. " ... Man cannot be trusted with justice,"2 and in the case of a declared person seeking justice, such justice cannot, and will not, be found in any venue controlled by members of the Church of Scientology. Despite Defendants' challenge to Plaintiffs' contention that there are no procedures governing arbitration beyond selection of the arbitral panel, one critical fact raised by Plaintiffs remains unchallenged and un-refuted: "A panel member must be a Scientologist in good standing." (Defendants' Response at 2, (emphasis added)) To date, no argument advanced by Defendants can obscure the undeniable truth that "[ a]n arbitral process under which Plaintiffs are ineligible, as 'declared' outcasts, is illusory and a sham" for which "[t]here is no precedent for enforcing what amounts to unmitigated ' tribal
2

L. Ron Hubbard
4

Case 8:13-cv-00220-JDW-TBM Document 95 Filed 11/07/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID 2012

prejudices' under the guise of arbitration." (Plaintiffs' Response and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Joint Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, D.E. 30).

Dated: November 7, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

Theodore Babbitt, Esq. ( N 091146) Amanda Sundarsingh, Esq. (FBN 0045082)

BABBITT JOHNSON OSBORNE & LECLAINCHE, P.A.

1641 Worthington Road, Suite 100 West Palm Beach, FL 33409 T: 561.684.2500 F: 561.684.6308 tedbabbitt@babbitt-johnson.com asundarsingh@babbitt-johnson.com Ronald P. Weil (FBN 169966) Amanda M. McGovern (FBN 964263) WElL QuARANTA McGovERN, P.A. Southeast Financial Center, Suite 900 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131 T: 305.372.5352 F: 305.372.5355 RPW @weillaw.net amcgovem@weillaw.net

Counsel for Plaintiffs Luis A. Garcia Saz and Maria Del Rocio Burgos Garcia